Recent content by entropy1

Would a video with Sean Carroll laying out MWI suffice? (because mr. Carroll is a physicist)

Is Everett 1957 ""Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" the go-to paper about MWI? It is behind a paywall.

In this topic I discussed MWI, which is an interpretation of standard QM. So to be more precise, my issue is with interpretation of QM. I don't refute standard QM. The topic was closed. I still feel interpretations of standard QM should be more indulgently moderated, especially considering it is...

I am struggling with the fact that if I have questions about standard QM, I seem to have to agree with standard QM in its entirity, in which case I wouldn't have questions in the first place if you know what I mean. I don't entirely agree with some aspects of QM. So does that mean I cannot ask...

As a side question: can I just ask a question about standard QM without reference (arXiv or other)?

Are arXiv papers a sufficient source to discuss on Physics Forums?

Thanks. It seems to work fine now. But I am not familiar with quantum computing. So the program is abacadabra to me :cry: I expected a graphical user interface in which you can add and drop gates. But that is not available in this version of your program. So your program is too complicated for...

There is a file or library missing (2024).

I have my own interpretation of an interpretation. :smile: Or rather of the math.

I would say they can't all be realized and thus are not real. They are possible.

I am refering to possible outcomes. Like there's always one more.

Because if you have them all, you don't have them all?

If the Hilbert space is infinite, you can't have all of them real right? So then I see this as that a sort of collapse may not be avoided. Can you give your view on that?

If we take the wave function Ψ of a particle X that gets measured in a basis with a finite countable number of eigenvectors N, then according to MWI and myself, the interpretation suggests that we can write Ψ as the sum of projections of Ψ on the eigenvectors the following way: Ψ= Σn |e(n)> ⊗...

I was pondering that by myself. My only knowledge of QM comes from "QM the absolute minimum" by Susskind & co, and PF. I confused the eigenvalue with the probability amplitude. There is a lot I don't understand.